5 a day unlikely to keep cancer at bay, Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Spanish Eyes

So folks, another myth exploded it seems. It is not that fruit and veg are not good for us as part of a balanced diet I guess, just that 5 portions a day despite the World Health Organistion endorsing this for cancer reduction, is not doing what it says on the tin.

There are so many studies that advocate something, then a few years later it is debunked. I like fruit and veg so will continue as I did, but am getting very sceptical about nutrition advice from WHO (Swine Flu anyone?) and the likes.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0407/1224267827990.html

Sapsorrow

Theres many more reaons to eat veg other than the prevention of cancer though.

El_Dangeroso

Yeah, I'd seen this research a while back. I think it's always a good strategy to include lots of varied veg in your diet. It's good for you, but it's not magical, especially if you eat a crap diet but with some veg thrown on top.

I think if you take out the rubbishy carbs, veg will naturally come in and fill that void on your plate, I eat upwards of 6+ portions a day some days, not by trying to hit a target, just by making room for it.

This is why nearly all most diet trials fail at preventing cancer in any serious way, you can't really look at these things in a vacuum.

Transform

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Yeah, I'd seen this research a while back. I think it's always a good strategy to include lots of varied veg in your diet. It's good for you, but it's not magical, especially if you eat a crap diet but with some veg thrown on top.

I think if you take out the rubbishy carbs, veg will naturally come in and fill that void on your plate, I eat upwards of 6+ portions a day some days, not by trying to hit a target, just by making room for it.

This is why nearly all most diet trials fail at preventing cancer in any serious way, you can't really look at these things in a vacuum.

plus stress has a major effect on the body - increase cortisol and causes inflammatory reactions. Easily the top three things to do to prevent cancer are -

1. Stay at your optimal weight (roughly) - the more overweight you are the higher the risk for all degenerative diseases

2. Cut back on stress - take a yoga class, read a book, meditate, what ever acts as a release valve for you

3. For the love of god please take at least 4-5g of good quality fish oils daily

e.g.
Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30(3):224-32. Epub 2006 Jul 26.

The potential of omega-3 fatty acids in the prevention of non-melanoma skin cancer.
Black HS, Rhodes LE.

Department of Dermatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA. hblack@bcm.tmc.edu

Abstract
In toto, there is strong circumstantial evidence from both experimental and clinical studies to support a role for omega-3 FA in the prevention of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). In experimental animal studies there is direct evidence that dietary omega-3 FA inhibits ultraviolet radiation (UVR) carcinogenic expression, with regard to both increased tumor latent period and reduced tumor multiplicity. Equivalent levels of omega-6 FA increase UVR carcinogenic expression. Dietary omega-3 FA dramatically reduces the plasma and cutaneous pro-inflammatory and immunosuppressive PGE(2) levels in mice. Dietary omega-6 FA increases prostaglandin E synthase type 2 (PGE(2)) level. Dietary omega-3 FA significantly reduces the inflammatory response and sustains, or enhances, the delayed type hypersensitivity immune response in mice when compared to an equivalent dietary level of omega-6 FA. Supplementary omega-3 FA significantly increases the UVR-mediated erythema threshold in humans. Supplementary omega-3 FA significantly reduces the level of pro-inflammatory and immunosuppressive PGE(2) levels in Ultraviolet B-irradiated human skin.


Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar 24. [Epub ahead of print]

{omega}-3 Fatty acid supplements in women at high risk of breast cancer have dose-dependent effects on breast adipose tissue fatty acid composition.
Yee LD, Lester JL, Cole RM, Richardson JR, Hsu JC, Li Y, Lehman A, Belury MA, Clinton SK.

Departments of Surgery The Ohio State University Columbus OH.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence of the preventive benefits of omega-3 (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in breast cancer continues to fuel interest in the potential role of dietary fat content in reducing breast cancer risk. The dose of fish-oil/omega-3 PUFAs needed to achieve maximal target tissue effects for breast cancer prevention remains undefined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the dose effects of omega-3 fatty acids on breast adipose tissue fatty acid profiles, we conducted a study of 4 doses of omega-3 PUFAs in women at high risk of breast cancer. DESIGN: In this 6-mo randomized open-label study, 48 women with increased breast cancer risk received 1, 3, 6, or 9 capsules/d of an omega-3 PUFA supplement that provided 0.84, 2.52, 5.04, and 7.56 g docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) + eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) daily, respectively. Subjects made monthly visits, at which time pill counts were made and fasting blood samples were collected to determine fatty acid profiles; anthropometric measurements were made, breast adipose tissue samples were collected, and laboratory tests of toxicity (alanine aminotransferase, LDL cholesterol, and platelet function) were made at baseline and at 3 and 6 mo. RESULTS: All doses led to increased serum and breast adipose tissue EPA and DHA concentrations, but the response to 0.84 g DHA+EPA/d was less than the maximum possible response with >/=2.52 g/d. Body mass index attenuated the dose response for serum tissue DHA and EPA (P = 0.015 and 0.027, respectively) and breast adipose tissue DHA (P = 0.0022) in all of the treatment groups. The incremental increase in DHA and EPA correlated inversely with baseline fat and serum values. Compliance over 6 mo was 92.9 +/- 9.2% and was unaffected by treatment arm. No severe or serious toxicities were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Daily doses up to 7.56 g DHA+EPA were well tolerated tissue with excellent compliance in this cohort at high risk of breast cancer. Body mass index and baseline fatty acid concentrations modulated the dose-response effects of omega-3 PUFA supplements on serum EPA and DHA and breast adipose tissue DHA.

PMID: 20335550 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


4. Cut back on total carb intake - i recommend no more than about 40% of total intake. Eat more veg, fuits, berries, nuts, seeds and clean protein sources.

e.g.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):627-37.

Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk--a meta-analysis of observational studies.
Barclay AW, Petocz P, McMillan-Price J, Flood VM, Prvan T, Mitchell P, Brand-Miller JC.

Human Nutrition Unit, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Comment in:

Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Aug;88(2):475-6; author reply 476-7.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Aug;88(2):477-8; author reply 478-9.

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent findings from observational studies have prolonged the controversy over the effects of dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) on the risk of certain chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the association between GI, GL, and chronic disease risk with the use of meta-analysis techniques. DESIGN: A systematic review of published reports identified a total of 37 prospective cohort studies of GI and GL and chronic disease risk. Studies were stratified further according to the validity of the tools used to assess dietary intake. Rate ratios (RRs) were estimated in a Cox proportional hazards model and combined by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: From 4 to 20 y of follow-up across studies, a total of 40 129 incident cases were identified. For the comparison between the highest and lowest quantiles of GI and GL, significant positive associations were found in fully adjusted models of validated studies for type 2 diabetes (GI RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.23, 1.59; GL RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.45), coronary heart disease (GI RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.56), gallbladder disease (GI RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.40; GL RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.25, 1.60), breast cancer (GI RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.16), and all diseases combined (GI RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.19; GL RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.15). CONCLUSIONS: Low-GI and/or low-GL diets are independently associated with a reduced risk of certain chronic diseases. In diabetes and heart disease, the protection is comparable with that seen for whole grain and high fiber intakes. The findings support the hypothesis that higher postprandial glycemia is a universal mechanism for disease progression.

that should help in a massive way but hey most people will look for the answer in a pill before addressing their nutrition deficiencies and total lack of proper exercise